an VrortcbIna. In Vartiamtnt.

PRIVILEGE.

the " Select Committee on Printed apers " (S totoekrdeareivveentvhuse

The House of Commons met on Saturday,

P aelplsoald jf, with the Minutes of Proceedings.

be probibli'14 tlie House. from levying the damages which have been awarded, until any failure on their part to yielit obedience to this prohibition would be treated as a contempt, and dealt with as such in the ordinary manner.

" 13. The Ilouse might allow the damages awarded in this case to be paid, but might at the same time declare that it would permit no further actions of the same kind to be brought, and that it would immediately commit for con- tempt any parties by whom such actions should be commenced or promoted,"

The opinion of' the Committee on these different modes of proceeding IS then sited- " 7. With respect to the first, the proceeding by writ of error, your Com- mittee cannot but apprehend that its adoption might be construed to involve new and exceedingly dangerous recognition of the principle, that the privileges of the House of Commons are subject to the determination of the Courts of Law, and ultimately of the House of Lords. They also conceive that, as the result of an appeal must be doubtful, while its failure might greatly increase the difficulty of a subsequent assertion by the House of its right of publishing its proceedings, they would not be justified in recommending to the House to take a step which would expose to such scrious hazard its future possessier a power which they believe to be absolutely indispensable for the due diselmge of its duties.

C011ne Whiell has been suggested, is open to the sonic objec- with this addition, that the house of Lords might object to pass a declaratory act, for the purpose of overruling a unanimous decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which had not been appealed from in the ordinary manner, and which had been allowed to be carried into effect.

"3. The passing of an act to enable the House for the future to publish its proceedings without having them questioned in a Court of Law, would, in the opinion of your Committee, be a virtual abandonment of the right which they have no doubt now belongs to this, in common with the other House of Par- liament, and which ought not, as they conceive, to be surrendered.

• "4. Should these objections to the modes of proceeding above described appear to be well founded, the next course to be considered is that of resisting the execution of the judgment obtained against Messrs. Hansard, by commit- ting (if necessary) for contempt the ministerial officers of the Court by which this judgment lias been pronounced. Your Committee are not insensible to the many difficulties which might probably arise in thus adopting measures of an extreme kind, to which for many years the House has not been compelled to resort; but at the same time they have to remark, that it is chiefly by using this power of commitment for contempt against the magisterial officer by whose agency other authorities of the state have invaded time rights claimed by this House; that some of those which are now its most undoubted privileges, have in former days been asserted with success ; and they are, upon the whole, of opinion that this would be the course most consistent with ancient Parlia- mentary usage, and with the dignity of the House.

"It is, however, the duty of your Committee to state, that although a ma-

jority of their number have concurred in this opinion, they are well aware that the course recommended is one not likely to be successful, unless it should meet with very general concurrence and support ; and they must not therefore conceal the fact that some even of those members of the Committee who are most deeply persuaded of the necessity of maintaining the valuable privilege of the House which has been disputed, are yet of opinion that in the present instance it is too late to do so in the manner which has just been recommended. These members of your Committee conceive that the House, by directing the Attoimey-General to appear in the actions and to defend Messrs. Hansard, has placed itself, so far as regards this particular case, in a situation in which it will be better to abide by the result of the trial which has been permitted to take place, and to allow the damages to be paid, determining at the same time that any thture proceedings of the stone nature should be arrested in their earliest stages by committing, for a contempt of the House, not only the parties by whom similar actions may be brought, but the agents and counsel they may employ. " Having anxiously considered this important matter, your Committee have come to the conclusion, that if the House should be resolved to trust ultimately to the exercise of its own powers for the assertion of the pri- vilege it claims, the objections urged to resisting the execution of the judgment of the Court in the present action are nut of such force that they ought Ito prevail against those which in that ease exist to any further concession ; a d they arc of opinion that, upon a comparison of the difficulties by which either line of conduct must be attended, the advantage will he found to be on the sale of not deferring to a later period the stand which must at last be made, unless The report commenced with an expression of regret that time had not been allowed for consideration of the important question referred to the Committee ; but the Committee hoped shortly to be able to present a complete report. Meanwhile, the proceedings in the case of Stock. dale versus Hansard, under which an execution might be had and levied on Tuesday the 18th instant on the goods of Hansard for the sum of 100/., awarded to Stockdale as damages by the Sheriffs' Court, rendered it an imperative duty on the part of the Committee to call the atten- tion of the House to the circumstances of the case. The Committee then set forth the different courses which, it had occurred to them, it was competent for the House to adopt-

" 1. A writ of error might be sued out, and the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench might thus be brought under the review, in the first instance, of the Exchequer Chamber, and ultimately of the House of Lords,

" 2. Mr. Stockdale might be suffered to receive the damages awarded, but e bill might at the same time be brought in, for the purpose of declarbm, for the future, the right of the House to publish its proceedinn " 3. Instead of attempting to pass a declaratory ',ct,"aa bill might be brol in, enabling both Houses of Parliament to M'Anlish such pipers asthey might think necessary. " 4. The House may avail of the constitutional powers it possesses to prevent the execution "..c. the judgment obtained against Messrs. Ilin'isard. If this course slio1.1■1 be followed, the Sheriff and his siffiordinate officers would On the final question, that the report (which was presented to the House) be adopted, the numbers were 13 to 3 ; the minority consisting of Lord Mahon, Mr. Pemberton, and Sir Robert Inglis.

The consideration of the Committee's Report, and temporary disposal of the question, was the first public business in the House on Monday.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked, if any member of the Committee who had voted in favour of resisting the execution of the judgment against Hansard was prepared with a motion calling upon the House to sup- port that view of the question ? If there were, he would delay making a statement of the course he intended to propose, till after such motion.

Mr. WYNN thought, that as Ministers had proposed the Committee, and taken the lead in previous stages of the question, they ought to state in the first instance what further steps they meant to propose.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose, and proceeded to argue, that as the House had directed the Attorney-General to appear and plead to the action, it would be unjust to obstruct the Sheriff in the execution of the duty imposed on him by the Court. He thought that, having admitted the right of the Court of Queen's Bench to decide this particular ques- tion, the House was bound to abide by its decision. At the same time, Lord John contended that the decision was erroneous, and an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons. It was necessary to con- sider in what way these attacks on the privileges of the House could best be prevented and resisted in future. In conformity with these Opinions, Lord John moved two resolutions,—the first declaring the in- expediency of adopting measures for the purpose of staying execution of the writ against Hansard; the second, that the House would enter into a consideration of the means of defending its essential privilege of publishing its votes and proceedings, as soon as the Committee on Printed Papers had made its full report on the subject. Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON protested against the authority assumed by the courts of law, and was strongly inclined to resist the execution of the writ. He urged the House to fully and in the face of the country unflinchingly assert and maintain its privileges in the most distinct and unequivocal manner ;" but he declined to move an amend- ment on Lord John Russell's motion, because, "after the opinion which the noble lord, so justly looked up to his party, had given, it would be absurd, not to say impertinent, on his part to attempt to force a motion of his own on the House."

Sir ROBERT Ixous commented on the impotent conclusion of Sir Stephen Lushington's magniloquent speech. He warned the House that they would not merely have to contend with the Sheriff, but they must be prepared to summon the Lord Chief Justice to their bar. For his part, he thought that the House ought to declare, that having appealed to the courts of law, and the decision being against them, they were not prepared to resist the execution of the law. This would be giving up the case, but not more so than Lord John Russell's reso- lution. Sir Robert moved an amendment to that effect ; but imme- diately withdrew it. the right of the House is to be surrendered: In giving this, as the opinion of the majority of thew number, your Committee must at the same time state, that they feel it to be a very nice and difficult question which line of conduct should, under all the circumstances of the case, be preferred; and they there- fore submit it with all deference to the determination of the House."

The Minutes appended to the Report record the divisions in the committee; of which the following were the most important.

On the question "that the House be advised to resist the execution of the judgment," there voted— Ayes, 12; Noes, 7 ;

Mr. Williams Wynn, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Clerk, Lord Mahon,

Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. Goulburn,

Mr. Villiers, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Tanered, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. O'Connell, Lord John Russell

Mr. Warburton, Mr. Easthope,

The Lord Advocate, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Attorney-General.

Mr. Sergeant Wilde drew up and submitted to the Committee an elaborate report ; which contained the following recommendation— That an acquiescence in the judgment prono tttt col in the case will create, on the part of the House, great Impediment in the future necessary exercise ot' the Parliamentary authority in vindication of its privilege ; and therefore it is necessary that the House should forthwith declare, that the prosecution of the mid action, and the attempt to levy any damages npen the defendant for the publication by hint, in pursuauce of its orders, directly impedes the effectual exercise of their Parliamentary functions, awl is a high contempt of the privi- lege of the House ; and that the House will visit with its severe displeasure all officers, ministers, and others, who shall act or aid in any manner in enforcing the judgment in such action, or otherwise troubling or molesting the said de- fendant for such publication. That when the privileges of the House have been invaded through the in- strumentality or agency of public officers of the law, the course and usage of Parliament has been to enforce obedience to the orders of the House by such public officers, and to commit such of them as should act in disregard of such order and privilege. "That the privilege of the Hoase to protect persons acting in obedience to its orders, can only be enforcetl by acting immediately and compulsorily upon such officers; and that such a course has hitherto been found adequate to the maintenance of the authority of Parliament."

The division in the Committee for the adoption of this report stood thus—

For it, 5; Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Mr. Tancred, Mr. V i Hers, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Easthope. ..fgainst it, 11; Dr. Lushington, Mr. Williams Wynn, Lord Halton, Mr. Pinola:atm, Sir R. IL Inglis, Sir G. CIL ris, Mr. Solicitor -General, Me. Solieitor-General for Ireland, The Lord Advocate, Lord John Resit.% Mr. Attorney-General.

Mr. Wannuirrost moved as an amendment, the first of the paragraphs quoted above from Sergeant 'Wilde's rejected report ; which declared -that the House would visit with its severe displeasure any officer who attempted to enforce or aid in enforcing the judgment against Hansard.

Mr. HOME seconded this amendment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL reminded the House, that he had objected to giv-

ing the Attorney-General orders to plead before the Court of Queen's Bench, foreseeing the difficulty which had since arisen. He argued, that, under all the circumstances, it was safest for the House to let the law in this instance take its course but adopt measures for preventing questions affecting the privileges Of the House from again coming be- fore the Court of Queen's Bench.

Sir JOHN Caminnua, declared the decision of the Judges to be bad in • law, and earnestly recommended resistance. He supported the amend- ment.

Mr. PEMBERTON, on the other hand, counselled obedience to the law of the land ; and warned the House, that in a contest with judges, counsel, attornies, and solicitors, they would be infallibly defeated— If one was intimidated, others would be found to take up the cause. He would offer himself, if necessary, to bring this great qmstion to is,oe. hundred others would be ready to do so. Frani the senior at the bar, his learned friend Sir Charles Wetherell, the consistent asscrtor of the indepen- dence of the bar, to the junior who was called yesterday, there was not one who would not one thousand times rather brave t h.: utmost vengeance of the House than the silent scorn which would meet him in iNery eye if he shrunk

from ids Ituty. Ile would only say in that he I rested that the lions° on th;s occasion would not enter in! :; course full of danger—one whieh they could not come out of, if they vith any thing but discredit, and in which if they succeeded their triumph wculd be over the independence of the judges, the majesty of the law, and those fghls and liberties of which they ought to be the defenders.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE, in a most elaborate speech, which elicited re- peated rounds of cheering front both sides of the House, defended the principles laid down in the report he offered to the Committee. He contended, that the Court of Queen's Bench had ene beyond its powers ; that it was the duty of Parliament to maintain its paramount authority, as representing the entire People, and to cheek the continual enerottehments of the Judges. Ile denied, and quoted high legal autho- rity the the denial, that the Courts of Law could discharge a person committed to prison for contempt by either House of Parliament. The House of' Commons formed part and parcel of the High Court of Par- liament, equally entitled with the House of Lords to act as a court of law and justice— There was no such thing as a writ of error to the House of Lords alone. Such writ of error was reviewable by Parliament, according to the ancient constitution of the country, consisting of both Houses, or the Three Estates colketively assembled. It was a privilege belonging to Parliament," call it by tliat name or any other name, and a privilege belonging to Parliament in that belISC only. The two Houses had on several occasions separated, some- times not Nvry certain for what cause they did so. Sonivtiolei it was in conse- r.!'n :el. and the Com- (pence of subsidies asked for by the Crown having been mons would not ',Armin longer in company. Put, as Lord Ellenhorough said, each :House on that siparation took its own part of privilege along with it necessary for the due and efficient discharge of its public functions. The powers of the Courts of Law since that day. not changed. They still re• mined. in comparison with the powers of Paeliament in the same relative position. The hands of the Judges were purer, b.t their powers were not en- larged. Such was the position of the .ludges now. ant and: it had been in the worst of times. Lord Ellenborough distinctly laid down that Parliament possessed the paramount right of using the pow :.‘r neec,,ary tivFsert its privi- leges ; and that each House poss..ssed, in the d!-Aarge of their separate func- tions, the authority necessary to be applied to enable it to perform its duties as a constituent part of " Parliament." Lord Ellen] wrough distinctly said that, in the division of functions, the jodicial tinetiomm1 LAOuged to the House of Lords. And, on looking to Lord Bolt, they would timid evidence to the same effect ; although the Clerk to the House of Lords, from a wish to enhance the influence of his own Itouse, had taken care to omit the names of members who were present. Therefore he maintained, that that House formed part and parcel of the High Court of Parliament ; although they did not 'choose, ly a side-wind, to become put, or to assume the privileges of the other. The privileges which have 0001 since the separation in 49 Henry III. enjoyed, and the functions which have been since uniformly exercised by each branch of the Legislature, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the other House and of the King, must be presumed to he the privileges and functions which then—that is, at the very period of their original separation—were statutably assigned to each. The privileges which belong to them seem at all thnes to have been, and necessarily must be, inherent in them, independent of any pre- cedent."

Mr. Wilde ridiculed the idea of the Commons being worsted in a struggle with any other power in the State. Thee might refuse to attend to public business until the question were satis.ilictorily settled. The Home Secretary might be directed to employ soldiery. But the plain and proper way of proceeding in the first instance was to stop the exe- cution by the Sheriff.

Sir EDWARD SrODEN maintained, that the Report of the Committee on Prisons did not libel Stockdale ; that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was bad in law ; but that the House of Commons had suffered the proper time for asserting its privileges to go by ; and there- fore he should oppose the amendment.

Sir ROBERT ROLFE supported the view of the question taken by Lord John Russell.

Mr. WYNN recommended the House to pass a declaratory bill, and then hold a conference with the Lords on the subject of maintaining their mutual privileges.

Lord HOWICK, amidst loud cries of " Question!" and " Divide!" warned the House against further concessions, and advised measures for stopping the execution of the writ.

Mr. FITZROY KELLY spoke amidst constant interruption. He said that the House was reduced by Lord John Russell's motion to a con- dition in which it could not recede with dignity, advance with consis- tency, or stand still with safety.

The House divided—

For the amendment 166

Against it 184 Majority Is

The first resolution was then passed without a division. The second resolution as carried, on a division,- by 133 to 36.

THE BALLOT.

The House was occupied on Tuesday with various matters till about half-past eight ; when the SPEAKER called upon Members having pe- titions on the Ballot to present them. Mr. BRISCOE presented one from Westbury, and Mr. GROTE five from different places.

Mr. GROTE then addressed the House, introductory to his motion. He began by remarking that the numerous discussions which the subject had- already undergone, forbade the hope that he could advance much of new argument, or invoke many fresh testimonies in its favour. Nevertheless, while he avoided needless amplification, he did not feel Obliged to throw aside arguments which bore forcibly on the question, merely because they had been used before ; for experience proved that it was not by the discovery of untrodden ways of demonstration, and new positive arguments, but by renewed discussions of the same topic at proper and seasonable intervals, and above all, by the continued painful sense of the same unremcdied evils, that political conclusions came to be disseminated and ultimately acted upon. In one respect he approached the subject with an advantage not before enjoyed : he un- derstood that he should not encounter the formal opposition of the .collective Cabinet, but that members of the Administration who re- sisted his motion would speak their individual sentiments only. He did not offer the secret vote as a remedy for all the evils of the representative system. He was ready to lend his best support to a large extension of the franchise, coupled with a more just and equitable apportionment of the constituencies. But though he did not propose the Ballot as a remedy for all the evils of the representative system, he did affirm confidently, that it was a remedy for one of the grossest and most grievous of its defects, inthnidation and corruption— e" And with regard to intimidation and corruption, there is this to be re- marked, that ninny persons who deny the existence of any other evils in the representation as it now stands—many persons who treat the Reform Act as perfect and unalterable in respect to the extension and distribution of the fran- chise—are yet ready to lament the prevalence of corruption and intimidation, and to admit the necessity of devising some method of combattieg them. When I hear the emphatic declarations, pronounced by the most powerful and commeuding persons in this country against bribery and coercion at elections —when I recollect that a few evenings ago, both the noble lord the Member for Stroud and the right honourable gentleman opposite, the Member for Tam- Worth, vied with each other in the earnestness with which they denounced these unlawful practices—I certainly might almost have supposed that the ob- ject which I seek to attain by my preqmt motion would have procured me some crumbs of support from both those distinguished persons, instead of re- ceiving a vigorous and unrelaxing opposition. Sir, I address myself to those who adopt the languagc of the noble lord and the right honourable baronet, and who treat the Reform Act as a final measure—as the permanent settlement of a great constitutional question, or any one of the thousand eqnivalent phrases by which all idea of further &ogress and improvement may be most directly and pointedly negatived : I address myself to those gentlemen, and I say to them, You tell Inc that the Reform Act is a final measure ; do you mean that the intimidation and corruption which now disgrace the operation of it shall be final also ? Do you mean to preserve and embalm all these gross deformities, and to make them partakers in that glorious immortality which you pro- mise to the Reform Act as a whole ? Was it an understanding between the Oroposers and the supporters of the Reform Bill, and did it form part of those Tuscola,' conversations in 1832 between the noble lord the Member for Stroud and Lord Althorp, to which allusion has been made in the noble lord's recent pamphlet, when they predicted the future restoration of empire to the Tory party, that intimidation and corruption were to be studiously kept alive for the purpose of neutralizing the supposed exorbitance of democraticul prin- ciple in the Reform Act. I do not expect, Sir, to hear it asserted that any such understanding either did exist or could have existed at the period when the Reform Act was first proposed ; or that persons who supported that measure were bound by any pledge to discountenance all future remedies against in- timidation and corruption. I do not expect, I say, to hear an assertion of this kind formally advanced, though arguments are not nnfrequently used which seem tacitly to imply it. Sir, I entertain no faith in that doctrine which pro- claims the Reform Act a final measure. I reject altogether the possibility that a franchise so restricted and so ill distributed as the present can be con- eidered as the permanent settlement of a great constitutional question. But yet I will nut scruple to contend, that gentlemen who differ with me on this point, may with perfect consistency agree with Inc in supporting the Ballot, unless they consider themselves pledged not only to the finality of the Reform Act, but also to the finality of intimidation and cor- ruption. Whether youinsist upon maintaining the present number of electors, or whether you seek to enlarge it—in either case, protection in the exercise of the franchise is indispensably necessary. I have maintained before, and I now maintain again, that the Ballot is in no sense an enlargement or disturbance of any boundary which has been fixed by the Reform Act ; aud this is often taken by Railicid journals as a ground of exception against it, as if it were something petty and insignificant. In my mind, Sir, this perfect consistency of the Ballot with the limits and principles of the Reform Act is neither a ground for prefer- ence nor a ground for disparagement. I advocate the Ballot on its own merits, as the only corrective of grievous electoral abuses ; and I insist upon its con- gruity with the principles of the Reform Act, because such is the real and lite- ral state of the case. Indeed it is now matter of' history, and has been often be- fore mentioned, that in the first speech of the noble lord the Member for Stroud when he introduced the Reform Bill in 1831, the questions as to the best mode of taking votes and as to the proper time for the duration of Parliaments were both expressly set aside and reserved for future consideration. Well, then, Sir, I shall (LIMBIC that gentlemen do really wish to suppress intimidation and corruption—that they do not regard these practices as profitable vices, at once to be denounced and to be upheld—,quod et vetabitur sniper et retinebitur that they regard them as a real taint and leprosy in our political system, calling for our utmost diligence to heal or to abate. Assuming this, I say, where are we to look for a remedy ? Has any person ever proposed any other remedy ex- cept the Ballot ?"

He was quite ready to accept any effectual substitute ; but he adhered

to his own remedy, because none other was offered in the slightest de- gree suited to the exigencies of the case. There was no third course possible : the House must choose between the evil and this remedy, 'which would be effectual ; for he defied human ingenuity to reward or punish an unknown and invisible act. But it was quite notorious that voters were not their own masters on the day of election ; and such must inevitably be the case under a system of open voting- " If you are to have any representative government at all in England, you must have multitudes of electors in dependent circumstances ; the distribution of property mu Englaud figbide any other supeesitioa. Tu expect ftem these men, unprotected as they are by the Legislature, the &instant sacrifice of their worldly interest to the preservation of political conscience—to expect thit you will find generally in their bosoms

That strong divinity of soul Which conquers chance and fate,'

such as richer and more accomplished men do not exhibit in their own person would be little better than an idle dream. I envy not the feelings of any lease' who can have engaged. in the details of electoral struggle without a profound sense of the miseries of an unsheltered franchise, and a sincere desire to apply to them an efficacious remedy."

Much had been said about a dissolution of Parliament : he knew not

whether a dissolution were to be expected, but in the condition ofstale_ mate to which parties in the House had been reduced, he thought the event not improbable ; and this probability, that ere long there might be a general election, increased lois anxiety to bring the subject before

the House. It was a fit time to renew his protest against the mischiefs and enormities inseparable from open voting.. He did believe that freedom of election, though foully trampled on m practice, was a sacred idea and an object of siucere inward attachment among the general public- " However powerful men may assert the monstrous privilege of dictating votes to those who are .poorer than themselves—however dection agents may pride themselves on their skill in hunting down irresolute or reluctant voters— however much the practical ivorking of contested elections :nay exhibit com- pulsory disunion between the vote and the conscience—still I am persuaded that the right of the country to a free and conscientious expression (if opinion from every qualified elector, poor as well as rich, and the right of the elector himself to express such opinion at the pull, without hindrance or injury, is among the most deeply-rooted of all our Paliunal convictions. To convert this right from a cherished fiction into an useful reality, is the charm and the virtue of the Ballot. If you refuse the Ballot, you virtually discountenance free and public-minded voting ; you decree the continued reign of corruption and intimidation ; you nourish and keep alive the poisonous taint Meek in- fects the life-blood of our representative system. Against this poison the Ballot is the only antidote ; and as such 1 commend it to your fiwourable de- cision. I know not yvhether von will reject it now ; but I feel well assured that you will not reject it long." (Much cheering.) Lord WOMBS: seconded the motion. He was now fully convinced, front his own observation, and althoup,lo originally adverse to the Ballot, that some protection ought to be given to the voter ; although he was bound to admit his belief; that were his own constituency polled under the present system of open voting, such was their dread of incurring the enmity of their landlords, float they would decide against the Ballot. In his own county it was imagined by many that the Ballot would lead to Universal Suffrage and the abolition of the Corn- laws ; and if he thought it would bring on such results, assuredly he

would not support it

Mr. GASKELL opposed the motion. lie contended, in the first place, that the Ballot ought not be conceded, if it would have the effect of making the voter completely irresponsible and independent ; as he de- nied the assumption on which the whole case of the Ballot rested, that the government of the country ought to be directed by the majority of the electors ; and secondly, because experience proved that the Ballot had fhiled wherever it had been tried. (Cries of "Name, name !") It had failed in Rome, where it was tried for eighty years—and in the Italian Republics—and in the United States of America. As an autho-

rity for the American instance, he adduced Miss Martineau, which gentlemen opposite would not object to.

Mr. Mecatmee said, that having been so long absent from the House, he would willingly have remained a silent observer of its pro- ceedings for some time • but the deep interest he felt in the question under discussion, and 1;6 sense of duty to lois constituents, impelled hint to solicit that indulgence which it was customary for the House to bestow. He rejoiced that Ministers had made the Ballot an " open question." It was an exceedingly nice point to determine how far Ministers should act in strict concert on various legislative questions— It was perfectly plain, however, that there were but three courses possible with respect to the conduct of 'Ministers in dealing with legislative questions,— either that they lutist agree on all questions whatever ; or that they must pretend to agree where there was a real difference ; or that they must leave each individual member of their body to take the course which his own opinion and inclination dictated. Now, that there should be a perfect agreement be- tween Ministers on all questions, they knew to be impossible.

It was the practice of former times, when Mr. Pitt was at the head of the Government, to allow all questions to be "open," except such as the Government brought forward itself, or those which its assailants sup- ported with the express design of injuring or overturning the Ministry. For instance, the questions of Parliamentary Reform, Slavery Abo-

lition, and the conduct of Warren Hastings, were "open" under Mr. Pitt—a Minister noted for his high and commanding spirit. A dif- ferent practice had grown up in modern times-, and they mill remem- bered how the Duke of Wellington, in 1828, dispensed with the services of several members of his Government on account of a difference of opinion on a subject on which not one of Mr. Pitt's colleagues would have deemed it necessary to ask permission to vote against him. Now,

he was satisfied that of late the line, which he did not pretend to draw precisely, had been drawn in an improper and inconsiderate manner ; and he had no doubt that the present Ministers, by making the Ballot an open question, had increased their strength and raised their cha- racter. He did moot think the Ballot would be a cure for bribery in all cases, but he did expect that it would prevent even a worse evil than bribery, intimidation— He believed the evil to be a growing evil, and he was satisfied Hurt it had made progress within the last seven years. liii believed. it had made progress within time last three years. Ile could. not disguise from himself, that the growth of this evil was in some measure to be imputed to the Reform Bill; and in saying this of the Reform Bill, he only said it in common of the Reform Bill and of almost every great measure. The Reformation of the Church, they all knew, produced classes of society and moral evils that were unknown in the time of the Plantagenets : the Revolution produced a descrip- tion of abuses that were unknown in the time of the Stuarts ; and the Refornt Bill, although he believed no measure was more generally- pleasing to the country, like the Reformation of the Church, and the Revolution, produced some new evils, and aggravated some old evils—it swept away many abuses, but it seemed to him to have given a deeper and more malignant energy to the abuses which it spared. It swept away many of the old channels of corrupt influence; but in those channels which it had not swept away, the corrupt current not only still ran on, but it ran on deeper, and stronger, and fouler than ever.. It destroyed, or, if it did not destroy, it restricted within narrow limits, the old practice of direct nomination ; but in doing so, he believed it gave a new impulse to the practice of intimidation, and this at the very mo-

rred the franchise on thousands of electors, and thus placed ment when it conferred

them ill a situation in which they were most open to influence and intimida- tion, It was impossible to close their eyes to the evidence that was offered to them on every side. If be believed the outcry raised, not by one party or front nue corner of the kingdom, but by Tories, Whin's, and Radicals, in Eng- land, Scotland, and Ireland, he must believe that tare were sitting in that Rouse gentlemen who owed their seats to votes extorted by fear. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches, and counter cheers from the Opposition.) And he said that if there was any gentleman in that House who owed his seat to such 'TIMIS, it were infinitely better that he sat there for Old Sarum ; for by sitting, there for Old. Sarum, he would be TIO Representative of the People—uor was he a Representative of the People now. At Old Sarum, there were no threats of ejectinents because a voter had more regard to his iliac duty than to his private interest. At Old Sarum, the voter was never pot to the alternative whether he would abandon his principles or reduce his family to distress. All tyranny was bad, hut the worst was that which worked with the machinery of freedom.

Mr. Macaulay described at length some of the various ways in which intimidation was practised. He warned the House against converting the Reform Act into an engine of oppression more hateful, anal more de- basing to the moral feeling, than that which existed in this country even in the fourteenth century. He dwelt upon the moral objection to the secret vote—which he considered neither sound nor well-considered; and he maintained that there was a greater degree of immorality in giving a vote against the dictates of conscience, than in telling an un- truth to one who had no right to question the elector as to his vote. He expressed his firm conviction, that when the privilege of really in- dependent voting was conceded—when the franchise became a franchise Indeed—instead of prefacing the way for change and spoliation, the achievement of that great national object would strengthen the law, secure the just rights of property, and cement the affections of all par- ties in the nation to the Law, the Parliament, and the Throne.

Mr. MitaaEs spoke amidst much interruption. He considered that the Ballot, if granted to popular clamour, would soon disappoint the clamourers; 1111d. then there would be a cry for carrying out the spirit of the Ballot-box, as there was now for carrying out the spirit of the Reform Act.

Sir GEORGE STAUNTON stated, that he should not persevere in a motion of which he had given notice, for a partial trial of the Ballot.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL declared that his hostility to the Ballot was un- diminished. He believed that intimidation would not be practised long ; that a better state of things would arrive ; and that the powers of pro- perty would be exercised with more regard to the right of election, if the remedy now proposed were not adopted. He Wished that Mr. Macaulay had trusted more to the " growing and predominant influ- ence of public opinion," on which he placed so much reliance when Member for Leeds, instead of throwing the weight of his talent and reputation into the Ballot scale. Lord John took pains to show that, in fact, ballot-voting would not he secret voting, as the honest nature of Englishmen would prevail, and when questioned, the elector would say truly whom he had voted for— Ile could not bring himself to the belief that (as had been intimated by Mr. Macaulay) the theaters of England would practise the deception necessary for promising their votes one way, and under cover of the ballot giving them the other. They might give their votes against the candidate recommended by their landlords for one election, but, Whichever way they voted, he did not think that it could be long kept concealed. 'rho steward might go to the farm- er and say, "Tell me now honestly, John Smith, did you vote fbr the 'Whig candidate at the last election ?" Ile firmly believed that if the question were put to him, the answer of John Smith would be, that he did vote for the Whig candidate. (Cheers j'rom the Opposition side.) As matters now stood, it was his opinion, that however you ought prove to the voter by refilled and specious arguments, that the mode of voting which you proposed to him was a just de- ception, and that he would be justified in using it, his plain good settee and good feeling would prevent him from following your advice. 'Wily, then, if the landlord was guilty of the attempt to force his tenant, the attempt would fail, by the frank disclosure of the tenant. But suppose that the Ballot would in time operate in the way desired, it would not only change the acts of the voter—it would change his frank and candid nature for habits Of deception ; and though in this manner corruption might cease its place would he supplied by decep- tion, and it would be followed by loss of truth and caudour ; and for his part he was not prepared to make the exchaage.

With respect to open questions, he would only say, that the present only followed the example of former Governments in adopting that principle; and though he had hitherto pressed his friends to oppose the

Ballot, when he found that nevertheless 200 Members, forming a ma- jority on his own side of the House, had supported it, he did not think

it right any longer to press his opinions in the same manner as before, on those with whom he had long acted in public affairs, whose opinions be respected, and whose motives he deeply esteemed.

Mr. &MIL referred to the disclosures by Lord Durham at Gateshead, and those made afterwards at the Edinburgh dinner to Earl Grey, and by Lord John Russell to his constituents at Stroud, to show that the

persons to whom Earl Grey had confided the task of preparing the Reform Bill—Lord John Russell, Lord Durham, Sir James Graham,

and Lord Dimcannon—had agreed with Lord Grey upon a plan of Reform which included the Ballot, and the shortening of Parliaments to five years— The qualification for the elective franchise was at first fixed at 201., but was afterwards reduced to 10/. Now he would not ask the question whether the programme signed by all the names was forthcoming, but he would ask whether, on the moral part of the question, on which the noble lord laid so much stress, some allowance should not be made for those who had at all times deliberately entertained the opinion in favour of the Ballot ? Was not the argument against falsehood and duplicity as strongthen as it was now ? Was not the force of public opinion as strong then as it is now? When the Reform Bill was in the House of Commons, Lord John Russell Said, in answer to a quest ion put by the Member for Middlesex, that the question of the Ballot was reserved; and Mr. Caleraft, alluding to some remarks about finality, asked the noble lord how that reform could be called final of which the question of the Ballot was re- served ? When Lord Chandos brought in his 501, tenant-at-will clause, it was objected to by Lord Althorp, amongst other reasons, on the ground that it would lead to the Ballot. A similar objection was made by Lord. Grey; by

Mr. Calera% in the Commons ; and by Lord Wharncliffe, in the House cd Lords.

- Now,let any man say after this, that as regarded the Ballot,theReform Act was understood from the first to be a final measure.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not deny his share in drawing up the Reform

Bill. But he had not received the permission, which had been extended to Lord John Russell, of making any disclosures on the subject ; he therefore could explain nothing, admit nothing, deny nothing. But he should not object to Lord John Russell's carrying his disclosures further— He should not object to his stating at whose suggestion the Ballot was in- serted in the draught ; still less should he object to his stating by whose votes the Ballot was rejected. It was known that at that time there was in the Cabinet a keeper of the King's conscience, whose boast it was that he had an argument which amounted to a mathematical demonstration that the Ballot was impracticable. Whatever might be said by the noble lord as to the introduction of the bill, he denied that during the progress of the dis- cussion on the bill the members of Lord Grey's Cabinet, as far as they themselves were concerned, over understood that it was open to them to support the Ballot or a further extension of the franchise : and he had the strongest possible reason for saying so. He supposed it would. not be denied that Lord Althorp spoke the opinion of the Cabinet— Sir James quoted a passage from a speech delivered by Lord Althorp in 1533— lit that speech, Lord Althorp appealed to every gentleman Wit° was in the last Parliament, and who knew the whole proceedings whilst the question of Reform was going on, whether the promoters of that measure did not contend that as far as representation was concerned, it was to be considered and was pro- posed as a final measure. Now, here was the origin of the very expression. It might be said there was a difference between the Representation of the People and the vote by Ballot But what was the application of Lord Althorp of the pledge ? Ile applied it to the motion of the Member for London.

Mr. Macaulay had presented an alternative of three branches to Ministers ; but there was a fourth which he bad not noticed—and that was, when you cannot agree with your colleagues on a question of primary importance, you ;nay resign. What was Lord John Russell's opinion on this point? With respect to making the Ballot an open question— ft would be safer to the country to have the Goaernment branded with the Revolutionary mark of the Ballot, than to allow members of the Government of great influence and great ability to take their part on the popular side, whilst those on the opposite side were dragging out an imperfect resistance, which sooner or later was sure of ending in defeat. Those members of the Cabinet who supported the popular side would have an undue advantage over those Ivlio opposed it ; and at last the Cabinet would be broken up when it was most dangerous to give way to popular impulse. He felt confident that the inevi- table consequence of that proceeding was, that those who took the popular side, although they alight be inferior in talent or power to these who took a con- trary view, would, me long, supplant them.

Lord Howlett entered his dissent front the doctrine that any member of Parliament, or member of the Government, could bind himself by any pledge as to what his future conduct might be under circumstances which he could not foresee. With respect to the effect of making the Ballot au open question, Lord Howick delivered himself, according to the Monting Chronie/c's report, as follows— He believed that, instead of contributing to the assistance of the Ballot by making it an open question, they were contributing a greater chance of re- sistance to it. (" Hear, he(tr, dear!") He told the honourable Member for London that he differed from him with respect to the Ballot ; he was not friendly to it, far from it—he was the decided opponent of the Ballot ; and if he believed that by continuing a member of a Government which made this an open question, lie was assisting its being carried, he would state fairly, that to- morrow he would cease to be a member of the Cabinet. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Sir liontarr PEEL said, that his opinion with respect to the Ballot re- mained unchanged ; and lie shoulki not have risen to state his adherence to it, but for some observations of Mr. Macaulay respecting open ques- tions, which he wished particularly to notice. He referred to,the often quoted precedent of the Catholie question, but maintained that em- barrassing as was the division in the Cabinet on that question, it would not be so mischievous as a division as the Ballot, which, Lord John Russell had himself declared—quoting with approbation the expression of the Morning Chronicle—would •• aggravate the breach between the middle and working classes," and become "an unendurable anomaly." Sir Robert proceeded to show that the system of epen questions de- prived the Government of the power to exercise its proper functions— It reduced the Government to a state of neutrality with respect to public affairs, by preventing their acting unless they were united; and thus, when they once established it as au open question, they could avoid every dilemma, and could not bring in any measure. To such a state had the Government been reduced on the Catholic question; to such a state were they now reduced on the Corn-law question ; and ill such a state were they now placed with regard to the Ballot. Possibly the Corn-laws might be brought to a sat islitctory ar- rangement if the existing Governmein were united. But it' they held the doctrine of making that an open question which, if they made it close, would endanger the Government, they held out an inducement to shrink from the proper exercise of the functions of the Goverment. Thus the only Member of the House that could net propose any measure would be one of her Ma- jesty's Ministers. Those who it Was supposed ought to lead the public mind in matters of legislation, those who had the hest means of access to im- portant information, would be prevented from submitting these matters to the Legislature ; and whilst every other gentleman, being a Member of the House, could propose measures, no member of the Government could do so. Depend upon it, to make a vital question an open question, WIO; to destroy the ()taiga- If this principle were admitted, why should not tions of party connexious. he and the gentlemen of Opposition principles form a Government on the un- derstanding that they should cautiously abatain from touching upon those questions on which they did not agree? He knew filen experience that it would SOW the seeds of disunion among the members of the Cabinet. How, for instatice, were they to iubninister their patronage? Each would be sincere in his opinions, and each would be asked by those who agreed with him whe- ther he had taken effectual means to support his own opinions ; and would not each appointment be canvassed both by those who wished to maintain those opinions as to what one thought an essential alteration, and the other a dan- gerous innovation?

He would not weary the House with stating over again his objections to the Ballot, but would content himself with entering his protest against the principle of open questions. Mr. GROTE, in reply, said he must persevere in his support of the Ballot, as no substitute had been proposed. If the Ballot were not a remedy for intimidation, no remedy could be found. He called parti- cular attention to Lord llowiek's observations— He had taken a note of the noble lord's avowal of the reason why he con- sented to make this an open question, and the noble lord might he sure that the friends of the Ballot -both within and mit of the House would take a note of it also. After what till: italic lord shad 'inlaidy proclaimed, there would not be any great gratitude fi.r thi, being made an open question. It had been ex- plained by the noble lord that the larger half of the Cabinet made this an open question for the purpose of spoiliog it. (" No, no!") If such were not the intention of the larger half of the 'Cabinet, he was glad of it, hut it was the opinion of the noble lord himself: It stood recorded, that some gentlemen in the Cabinet had made this an open question for the purpose of imposing a ma- terial impediment hi the future lowness of the Ballet ; and when the friends of the Ballot weighed this avwyal, he thought that there would be no addi- tional feeling in favour of the Government in consequence of their making this an open question.

Lord 'Towles, in explanation, said that Mr. Grote attached more im- portance to his words than they deserved—

What he bad expressed was, his own opinion, not that of his honourable friends near him, who, taking a different course as to the vote by Ballot, would take n different view of the effect of making this an open question.

Cries of "Spoke, spoke!" prevented Lord Howick from proceed- ing; and

The House divided—

For the mAlor 216' Against it 33:1 Majority against the Ballot 117

These number: %vets. aralf1.11!C y the Tellers, but the published list of divisions

gives only 215 mimes in the minority.

JAMAICA.

On the order of the day for the third reading of the Jamaica Bill being moved, on Wednesday. Mr. Hosts asked, if any reply had been given to the inquiry of the Jamaica Assembly whether they were to continue to act as an independent Legislature, or whether the colony was to be governed by Orders in Council ? Lord JOHN Russma, ob- served that such was not the real state of the question—the Jamaica Legislature required that Parliament should relinquish the right of legislating for the colony. Mr. HUME enforced his own view of the matter. Mr. Lanoticusus replied to the same effect as Lord John Russell ; and stated, that the time after which the Governor and Coun- sel would be empowered to pass laws without the consent of the Assembly, would be extended from the 1st to the 15th of October.

The bill was read a third time, without a division.

On the question "that the bill do now pass,' Mr. Goemitunw rose to move the omission of the first clause; to which he stated several objections.

Mr. HUME denied the necessity of Parliamentary interference, and supported the amendment. He also disapproved of the principle of the measure, and would oppose it on that ground.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL remarked, that Mr. Burge had directed his ob- aervatians against the second ob use of the bill, which involved the con- stitutional principle ; but the opponents of the measure in that House objected to the first clause, which did not at all interfere with the con- stitutional privileges of the Assembly. If the first clause were rejected, all legislation with respect to vagrancy and the unlawful occupation of lands would be prevented ; hut the constitutional objection rested on the second section.

Sir Holism' PEEL rose amidst loud cries of " Divide !" He said he would willingly give way. if it were creditable to the House that he should do so ; but he feared the House was going to place itself in a discreditable position by adopting this measure. He thought that the Jamaica Assembly would have just cause of complaint if this bill were passed— They said to the House of Assembly, "Unless you pass these most impor- tant laws relati ]] g to the domeAie :.islation of the colony, you shall be sus- pended, and the -Governor in Ceine.:1 shall exercise your functions." They gave them six weeks to do it in : mmmv he begged to ask them whether they considered it decorous to make such a proposition? When they looked at their own course with res1..,et to the Church-rates, Irish tithes, Joint Stock Banks, and the legislation tin. Canada, for which they had postponed every practical measure until the year lS49, did they think it decorous to tell the Colonial Legislature of Jamaica, " Unless in six weeks you pass some most important bills which we give you, we will suspend you?" What he depre- cated was this—that they were going to give the House of Assembly a great advantage over them ; they were go:ng to reverse their positions. He never felt more strongly than lie did upon this point. He meant to give the Govern- ment his support provided the Hoe,. of Assembly did neglect their duties to this country and to the Negro pcpul.dion, and it lie were convinced of their neglect, he wis readv to support a measure which should arrogate to the British Parliament the right of legislating for the welfare of the colony : but he felt that they were emoarrassime the consideration of the question by the new course which they were adopiings What were they eaing to do ? 'They were not reserving to the Imperial P.:idiament, but to the'Begislative Council and the Governor, the right to &tenable what was fit to be done on the 15th of October. Tlwv were going to give to the new Governor—who was going to the colony without any exp-rieee; a, to its position—whom they were about to Bend out by the next packet—the rover of deciding whether it was fit to suspend legislation there ; and by led.line: over them a coercive menace, they were makinv it imopa lilt fur them to exereise the power which was proposed to be vested in tb,m. II they wene Ic esrnest in wishing that the Legislature should continue in existence, they surly must wish it to be useful ; but if it yielded to their menace, what authority would it have in the island? Would it not be felt both by the Whites mitt the Blacks that they had preserved them- selves from sudden extinction ? But was it for the good of the Negro or any- body that the rights of the peopls. sie.old be saved by yielding to threats ? They, would place the ist Led hi ;he wor-t position. Legislation might be pur- sued and might remain. leg it would be of a most discreditable nature.

The Met was, that this bill was only a plaster for the damaged honour of the Government ; and it did not cover the wound effectually.

• Mr. LABOUCHEHL contended, that ample opportunity would be afforded to the Jamaica Assembly to prevent the necessity of bringing this measure into operation. It was not a very agreeable mode of pro- ceeding, but it was the best which under the circumstances could be adopted, and there was nothing new it—it had been adopted elsewhere.

The House divided—

For the clause 267 Against 257 Ministerial majority 10 The bill then passed.

It was taken to the Lords on Thursday ; read a first time, and ordered to a second reading next Friday.

NATIONAL EDUCA.TION.

The debate on this subject, adjourned on Friday last week, was re- sumed on 'Wednesday ; the motion being Lord JOIIN RUSSELL'S, that the House should go into a Committee of Supply.

Mr. WYSE was the first speaker. He applied himself to answer Lord Stanley's objections to the Government scheme ; and contended that the author of the plan of education for Ireland was bound in eon- sistency to support a measure founded on a similar principle for Eng- land. The necessity of a state provision for the general instruction of the people, Mr. Wyse illustrated by numerous facts, proving their grass ignorance and the evils thence springing. He referred especially to imperfect agriculture, and the losses suffered from inability to make calculations and keep accounts ; the want of ventilation, easily ob- tained, in the dwellings of the poor ; the deficiency of skill in the fitter articles of manufacture ; the evil consequences of strikes ; the crime, misery, 'and intemperance of so large a proportion of the labouring population. He was at pains to prove the close connexion between crime and ignorance ; and by various statistical details showed, that only a very small portion of the people received any kind of education, and a still smaller portion really useful instruction. He contrasted Eng- land in respect of national education with America and Prussia, and stated that in the entire civilized world England was the only country in which a system, more or less effective, of organized public instruc- tion did not exist. He felt convinced that the people of England would not much longer submit to a temporal yoke imposed upon them in the shape of a spiritual yoke ; for the manifestations recently got up were the effects of momentary intoxication—of a delusion which the people would unanimously repudiate in their sober moments.

Mr. COLQUHOUN maintained, that the real•question before the House was not the imposition of a spiritual yoke, or the establishment of the ascendancy of the Church, lint whether a system which had been esta- blished for six years with excellent effect should be continued, and a new system unknown to the constitution of the country should be re. jected. Sir. Colquhoun enlarged upon the advantages derived from the exertions of the National Society ; and opposed the Government scheme chiefly because it would draw attention from those peculiar doctrines which gave religion its life and force.

Mr. CHARLES Bolaant said, that the arguments and reasoning of gentlemen opposite resolved themselves into unconquerable hostility to the general instruction of the people. For himself, he chiefly valued the measures of Government for the principle involved in them— namely, that to give education to the people was the vital duty of the Government of the country. He contended that the Church had not the machinery requisite for the fulfilment of this duty ; and if she did possess the means, they could not be employed in a country where liberty of conscience was so highly prized. Mr. Buller proceeded to enforce the necessity of distributing instruction by reference to the dis- content now prevalent among the working population.

"Whenever I contemplate the condition of the working classes,—the deep and dark gulf that separates them from the knowledge and the sympathies of their superiors in fortune, the utter ignorance in which we are of their feelings and wants, the little influence which we have over their conduct, and the little hold which we appear to have on their affections,—I shrink with terror from the wild passions and dense ignorance that appear to be fermenting in that mass of physical force. 'We see vast portions of them utterly neglected, utterly uninstructed, and plunged in debauchery during the intervals of toil. Among another and yet wider class, we may observe the spread of thought yet more pernicious, and the intercommunication of sympathies yet more menacing. Sometimes the murmur of their discontent and ignorance assumes an articulate form, and speaks in the accents of the disciples of Thom, the followers of Stephens, and the millions whose creed is Chartism ; for such are the instructors to whom you leave the minds of the people. Some learn their religion from a lunatic, in whose resurrection they believe; others arc taught that every man has a right to what wages lie thinks reasonable, and that he may enforce his right by the dagger and the torch. Others learn that rents and profits are a deduction from wages, and consequently- believe that the owners of land amid capital are the plunderers and oppressors of the workman. These doctrines advance unencountered by the atonality or the simple political reasoning which would dispel their influence. This bad instruction is allowed to be the only instruction of the poor ; while you, the enlightened rulers of this country, whose property and lives will be the first victims of these terrible delusions of the masses, spend in a squabble about creeds the precious time which is rapidly hearing us on to the dark catastrophe of your culpable folly and neglect. And when the Government—the last of civilized governments— awakened from its torpid neglect of the minds of the people, proposes at le»gth to send the schoolmaster among these dangerous yet teachable masses, the noble Lord, the Church, and the Aristocracy, and the great Conservative party bar its passage with the Thirty-nine Articles." (Loud Cheers.) He was himself, on political grounds, a friend to the Established Church, and had never been an advocate of the Voluntary system.; but one reason why the Church was unfitted to control the education of the people, was the prevalence among the clergy of the doctrines pro- mulgated at Oxford ; and when he saw in that House the able repre- sentative of doctrines which bore such wonderful affinity to those of the Church they most reviled, he could not but look with suspicion ono the de- signs of those gentlemen. He left the clergy to settle these matters with their allies, the Wesleyan Methodists ; but he warned the House to pause, and before it placed education under the guidance of the Church, to obtain some guarantee that by so doing they would not favour the.pro- pagation of doctrines, than which, he would deliberately say, Papistry, in its worst days, never advanced any thing more degrading to the human mind, and more inconsistent with human liberty.

Mr. ACLAND argued, that the Established Church possessed to a very great extent the means and performed the duty of instructing the people ; and he supported his position by a variety of statistical details, concluding with expressing his determination to resist the establish- ment of sectarian schools by the State.

Sir STEPHEN LUSHINGTON protested against the misrepresentation with which the Government scheme had been assailed; and warned Members that its rejection would be taken as a declaration of hostility

against the great body i of the co con- demn and a determination to co-

d m emn the to a continuance n that state of deplorable ignorance, which it was their bounden duty to remove. On Mr. BROTHERTON'S motion, the debate was adjourned. Mr. D'Isnasnee opened the debate on Thursday. He argued that Coned education was very different from state education, and might be attained without the direct interference of Government. He referred to the example of China and Persia, of Austria and Prussia, to show that it was the policy of arbitrary governments to interfere with the effiwation of their subjects even in the nursery. Were such a system introduced into this country, Englishmen, with the freest institutions in the world, might be enslaved. It had been the wise policy of' their ancestors to keep the state weak and society strong; but that policy would be reversed were the education of the people, beginning in infancy, placed under the direction of the Government. He desired to maintain the ascendancy of the Church of England—not that be feared an inroad of infidelity, but of' fanaticism, as the consequence of her overthrow by the united efforts of sectarians. He warned the House against extending the centralizing system. What might not be the consequence of applying the principle of centralization to the edu- cation of the people ?— Br the system of state education all were thrown into one mint, and all came. out with the same impress and superscription. They might make money—they might make railroads; but when the age of passion came—when those 'interests were stirring which would shake society to its centre, then they would see what would become of the advocates of state education. Who, lie Ionia ask, had built their universities ? Was it central organization ? Who had provided for the education of the people the schools winch were the orna- ment, of architecture of the middle ages—the Williams of Wykeham—who bad built their colleges and their cathedrals? Was it central organization ? The time would come when they would hind that they had revolutionized the Enelidi character ; and when they had done that, they could no longer expect English achievement. Mr. EwAter defended the Government scheme, and referred to the successful operation in Liverpool of the principle on which it was founded. There the system of combined education had been attended with excellent effects.

Mr. PaU3IPTRE, Mr. GALLI' KNIGHT, and Sir GEORGE STAUNTON supported Lord Stanley's amendment.

Mr. Ginsos remarked, that they who complained that the Church was not represented in the Educational Committee of the Privy Council drew a singular distinction between the Church and the Clergy. The Articles informed him that the Church consisted of the congregation of the faithful ; and he would not believe that the members of the Com- mittee, who he supposed were Churchmen, would be hostile to the Establishment because they were not clergymen. It had been said that the working classes were dissatisfied because in the existing schools there was not sufficient attention paid to religious instruction ; but his experience did not confirm that statement- . .

Oil the '"uritillry, t tc Worleing men complained that in these national schools nothing but religion was taught. They said, " Why cannot we teach our children religion ourselves, or send them to church on Sundays, and send them to these schools to leans something that will be useful in this world, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic ?" So far from useful practical knowledge being. conveyed, nothing was taught at those schools but strange outlandish texts from the Old Testament—nothing that could be of use either in this world, or the next. They were not taught their duties to God and man—to be honest, and lowly, and forbearing; they were not taught their duty to their neighbour ; but they were taught a good deal about Moab, and the names of mountains in the Old and New Testament, and about the dices of angels In act, a variety of knowledge was conveyed to those chil- dren On subjects upon which, if similar questions were put to the Member for the University of Oxford himself; he verily believed that the honoureble baronet would be unable to reply to them. (Cheers and laughter.) Although he had been elected as a Conservative, Mr. Gibson had always assured his constituents that he should support any plan of ge- neral education on the principle of religious liberty. He protested against the doctrines laid down by Lord Stanley, and disapproved of the mixture of secular with doctrinal instruction— What necessity was there for them to mix up religious instruction with the teaching of arithmetic or other similar matters ? Ile had little doubt but that in some of the schools that had heen so much alluded to as imparting religious instruction, in the minds of the children they would fina the teaching of mul- tiplication mixed up with the doctrine of Justification by faith. (Cries or "Oh, old") Ile contended that this wits not an extravagant opinion. He had seen sonic of' the effects of mixing up religious instruction in many schools; and he was satisfied that no attempt of the kinul could answer the expecta- tions tint were entertained on the subject. He had seen, for instance, an attempt made to impart religious instruction with a knowledge of the alpha- bet; and it began us follows- " A stands for Angel, who praises the laird ; B stands for Bible, that tem.hes Cutts word ;

C stmuLs for Church, to which righteous men go; stands the Devil, the cattie of all 'wo."

(Great laughter.) This was an admirable specimen of an attempt to promote this kiud of coinbined education.

Sir HAnnv VERNEY briefly supported the Government scheme. Sir ROBERT INGLIS contended, that to bring into the same school children of parents holding different religious opinions, could not be attended with good effects. He would never consent to apply the public funds to the propagation of what Ile believed to be error ; and lie con- tended, that if Ministers believed the doctrines of the Church of Eng- land to be the true faith, they could not cOnsistently aid in disseminat- ing dissent. He referred with triumph to the great preponderance of petitions against over those in favour of the Government scheme.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the petitions against the scheme were little rolls of paper, with little red tapes round them, all coming front the same shop, and looking as if they had been created at the sante moment. According to the last return, there were 1,615 of them, but with only 165,729 signatures; while in Ireland 550,356 persons came forward eagerly and subscribed 710 petitions in support of the policy of the present Government ; and there were 141,370 signatures to only 611 petitions from Scotland in favour of the extension of church-accommo- dation : but on these matters the people of Ireland and of Scotland Were in earnest. Mr. O'Connell then referred to the success which in other countries had attended the experiment that Ministers now pro- posed to snake in England. He protested against the misrepresenta- tion and bigotry with which the scheme was assailed, and attributed the opposition to it chiefly to the dislike of admitting Catholics to the benefits of State education. He entered into statistical details to prove that the numbers of Churchmen to Dissenters in the United. Kingdom were only in the proportion of 9 to 14. At great length Mr. O'Connell defended the Roman Catholic Church from the charee of bigotry. Finally, he said, " Faith is great ; Hope is cheering ; but Charity is the greatest of all, includes all, and forms the proper basis for all."

Mr. GLADSTONE declared himself ready to maintain every thing he had written in a book which had been referred to in the debate, on the Church of England and its connexion with the state ; bat theological doctrines were unfit subjects of discussion in that I louse, and he would not unglue upon them. He questioned the correctness of Mr. O'Con- nell's statistics; which put him in mind of a remark of Ir. Canning, that " he looked with great distrust to a fact in debate ; but one thing he distrusted more than a ffict, and that was a figure." Mr. Gladstone referred to a writer in the Morning Gimmick who had estimated the English Dissenters at between two and three millions out of a population of fifteen millions; which he believed to be the more correct calculation. He proceeded to contend that the scheme of educating all sects with the public funds, was unconstitutional ; and tbat it was opposed to the wishes of the people, sufficient evidence had surely been given to Ministers themselves. But They seemed to have learned nothing from their attacks upon the Church end the religion of the country. He thought it would have been enough for them to recollect the experience of tlw last four years, and the enormous political admit:lees which they had given to their opponents bv proposing plans width, in the minds of the people at large, were hostile, if not intended to be hostile, to the religion of the country. Year after year, defeated in one plan they brought fbrward another ; and every time they were obliged to recoil from the assault baffled, defeated, and traanplid upon. (Loud cheers.) Mr. SPRING RICE pointed attention to the consequences of the prin- ciple laid down by the Opposition, that the State could only aid in dis- seminating orthodoxy— If they propesed to connect with education those parts of religion which were common to all Christians, and which in this discussion had been much undervalued by gentlemen opposite, as if they were wholly unimportant—if they were to endeavour to connect secular instruction with that religions in- struction, they would be met with taunts that they were generalizing religion— that they were latitudinarian in their opinions, and that their doctrines led to infidelity, it' not Atheism. As to general instruction, the gentlemen opposite entertained a total objection. Would they allow of instruction in common schools in the fitith of the Church of England, and in any other fiiith? No, because the instruction must be founded in error. Would they allow the in- troduction of schools lbr separate religions? Would they allow the establish- ment of a Catholic by the side of a Protestant school ? They coului not admit of a Catholic school without making themselves nuxiliary to the propagation of error. They therefore excluded both common and separate instroction ; and. they reserved themselves solely to this—namely, the education of children in the Established Church upon the principles of the Established quint, principle laid down amounted to nothing more or less than this, that they would educate the children of the Established Church, but there should be no education for children belonging to any other church or religion. (Cheers, and

cries of " Ni no!") He said that this was the distinct and logical conclusion: it was impossible to escape from it.

He reminded Mr. Gladstone that he had been Under Secretary for the Colonies ; and the principle he laid down was good for the Colonies if good for the Mother Country. Now, a paper had been laid on the table respecting the Church Establishment in the Colonies— The return was made under four heads, and it showed that they supported moss largely the Church of England—that they supported largely the Church of Scotland—that in four colonies they supported the Dutch Cburch-,and that in many of the colonies, and, it must cat to the heart the stle consciences of many fodividuals present, they supported the Church of Beene. It was sup gested to him (by Mr. Shia) that he might go further, for he believed that in Jamaica provision was mode for the Jews. The Member fn. Newark ought to have noticed this, but, perhaps, it would Inure taken of the edge of some portion of' his argument. What then became of the state conscience. (Loud cheers.)

Mr. Rice complained of the base misrepresentations employed to get up petitions against the scheme ; and protested against the gall, bitter- ness, and party-spirit which marked the course of the Opposition; but he did not believe it would prevail in the division.

Sir JAmes tInAnAm quoted passages from Lord Stanley's speech on the admission of Dissenters to the Universities to show that Lord Stanley had expressed himself on that subject with great caution ; and he maintained, that of all men his noble friend was least liable to the charge of slipping away front his principles. With respect to the question of what was religious truth, Sir Jaummes rould only say that it was sufficient that the State bad chosen to establish a particular church, and select a particular creed, and therefbre could not de more than tolerate different or adverse opinions. The moment it went beyond that point, a paramount state religion was at an end.

Lord Jonx Russimi. entered into a general defence and explanation of the Government scheme : Lind insisted upon the necessity of ex- tending instruction among the people. as the surest way of preventing danger to the established in ;eel: i.ms of the country. He remarked upon the inefficacy of coercive laws for the suppression of popular dis- content. It would have been by no means difficult to obtain severe enactments against the Chartists: and thirty years ago the Govern- ment, under similar circumstances, would have proposed to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act ; but his anxious wish had been to defer to the last moment the suspension of any of the constitutional rights of the people —to meet, encounter, and subdue apprehension which, for a time. menaced the peace of society. But in so doing, he felt convinced that every means should be employed to secure 'public peace by improving the state of instruction, advancing the religious feeling and moral con- dition of the people— "I feel, Sir, that in taking this course, and in making this attempt, I have had more opposition to encounter than if' I had taken' the other course, and had proposal measures of severity and of coercion. But, Sir' do not mind. the opposition I have encountered. I am not to be deterred by the taunt of the honourable Member for Newark, who said that he wondered why, when we were defeated in our former scheme, we should attempt another which is equally objectionable to Dissenters and to Churchmen. Although, Sir, my first plans were thwarted and defeated—at which the honourable gentleman, no doubt, re.. joices, I recollect that it has happened to me in former years to succeed in striking off from the Dissenters the degrading fetters of the Test and Corpora- tion Acts. I am quite prepared for opposition to plans of this kind ; I am quite prepared to find, that when they.are first proposed they should be mis- understood and misrepresented, and that even the No Popery cry should be re- vived and burnished up afresh—not, Sir, I fear, for the last time. Let the honourable Member for Newark take pride in such victories ; but I do not be- lieve that he will succeed in reimposing the fetters which have been struck off: and, Sir, I am fully convinced, that on further examination, the great cause of education, not only of the Members of the Church of England, but of the whole community, will prosper and flourish ; that the happiness of the people will be secured; that the degrading pictures which have been drawn in 1839 will be deceased pictures of a past time, and that the only wonder will be that they could ever have been true pictures of the state of England." (Loud and long-continued cheering.) Sir ROBERT PEEL repeated some of the arguments advanced by Lord Stanley against that essential part of the scheme which pat the educa- tion of the people under the control of members of the Executive Government, liable at any time to be removed ; who, in order to retain office, might court support from a party by tampering with the per- formance of their duties; who might revive next year a plan abandoned this year, just as they made the Ballot an "open question" now, though last session the Government was in decided opposition to it. Sir Robert also strenuously objected to the mode of proceeding ; by which, in fact, a system of national education was 'established by a single money-vote in a Committee of Supply. He had very great doubt as to the expe- diency of the system of education in Ireland, to which he had agreed in the hope of conciliating and pacifying the people in that country ; burwith regard to England, he had conic to the conclusion, that the State ought not to shrink from educating the people in the doctrines of the Established Church ; and he thought there was as fair a chance of harmony and satisfaction on that principle, as if religion were made, as it were, an "open question." Experience was not in favour of the Ministerial proposition. In Prussia, the attempt to give secular in- struction to various sects in the same school, and religious instruction apart, had failed and been abandoned. In New York, the Secretary of a Board of Education, acting on the same principle, admitted in a pub- lished report, that the result was a grievous deficiency of moral and religious education. Now that was precisely what Sir Robert antici- pated from the adoption of the plan in England. The effect of the numerous petitions against the scheme was not to be shaken by any remarks which had been made. They now exceeded 3,000, aud more were coming in. If they did not express public opinion, he would ask, where were the counter-petitions? Only 50 had been presented. Sir Robert thus summed up his objections to scheme— He advised, not the Government, but the House, to consent to the principle embraced in the amendment of his noble friend, and advise her Majesty to rescind the Order in Council. He offered this advice on four distinct grounds, —first, that in the present state of feeling in the country on this subject, a Board of Education could not wisely be constituted; next, that the Board, if conetituted, (and. the utmost difficulty. would arise as to its constitat .... ought not to consist exclusivety 01 mummers m sue kyovernmeni thirdly, that, as regarded the education of the children of the Establishment, it would be unwise and itnproper to exclude from the control of it those ecclesiastical authorities who were properly placed in charge of the religious education of the community ; and lastly, because there had been presented against the schemes petitions unequalled in number, in purity, and for the disinterestedness of the views of those who presented them ; and because a temporary success, if the Scheme were carried by a small and scanty majority, so far from advancing the cause of sound religious instruction, soothing animosities, and allaying discord, would be but the commencement of a new religious struggle in the very worst a .ena in which, in this country, such a struggle could be carried on. (Loud cheers.) The House divided—

For Lord Stanley's amendment Against it Ministerial majority 5

Sir ROBERT PEEL, after the numbers had been declared, asked Lord John Russell when he meant to take the vote ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied—" At once."

Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to this course. The proceeding was not by a bill, but a vote in Committee ; and after such a division, at half- past two o'clock in the morning, he protested against giving what was in fact sanction to a scheme of national education.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL reminded the House, that the subject had un- dergone three nights' discussion. He had a perfect right to propose the vote, and he did not think the course taken by the Opposition rea- sonable or just.

Sir ROBERT PEEL repeated his objections to legislating in this way in a Committee of Supply. He bad never done so befbre, but on this occasion he would offer every opposition to the further proceeding with so important a question at half-past two o'clock.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked if there were any objection to going for- mally into Committee ?

Sir Roanar PEEL had none ; but he could not see what would be gained by it.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he was anxious that the further discussion should take place in the Comiuittee of Supply.

Colonel SIBTHORPE moved the adjournment of the House ; but with- drew the motion, at the request of Lord STANLEY ; who denied that factious opposition was offered. There were various modes of offering opposition, which had not been taken advantage of, though, considering that the subject did not come before the House in the shape of a bill, to be discussed in various stages, a resort to such meal's would be justifiable.

Lord Joust RUSSELL finally agreed to postpone the vote till Monday. The House pro forma went into Committee, and adjourned soon after three o'clock.

MISCELLANEOUS.

TUE BEER BILL was read a third time in the House of Lords on

275 280

LINGTON, opposed by Lord WELLESLEY and the Mary VL Monday ; .being supported by Lord BROUGHAM and the Duke of Wc1.- 11..s .4ISTMIN- STER ; while the Marquis of SALISBURY, Lord DACRE, and Lord ELLENBOROUGH, were inclined to support the bill with material altera- tions. The numbers on the division were 36 to 19 ; and then it was agreed that the bill should be recommitted on Monday next. In the course of the discussion, Lord BROUGHAM, replying to Lord Melbourne, (whom he called by mistake his " learned friend," but, correcting hin. self, said " God knows he is not my learned, but my noble and on this subject ignorant friend,.") adverted to the thin attendance of Member., and especially to the absence of the Bishops from the House on this occasion— He was sorry to see from the aspect of the House, that the present critical hour had had the effect of sadly thinning their Lordships' numbers. Their Lordships liked the Beer Bill 'little but they liked remaining in the House after hatfrpast seven o'clock less. little, Lordships liked to see a good state of morality in the country—the tranquil order of society they dearly loved—it was the very apple of their eve ; but there was another affection operatio, upon certain delicate organs in the constitution of noble lords, still more inti- mately' than those connected with the peace, order, and purity of society, and. reminding them of what had been called the most important event of exist- ence—that of dinner. (Laugh(er.) " I am glad to find, said Lord Brougham, turning to the Episcopal Bench, that my observation is not confined to the Lay Liras, it extends equally to those who are the appointed guardians of public morals and virtue. How otten have I heard the beer-houses denounced by time right reverend occupants of that bench ! There is hardly a Bishop whom I Immune not heard implorinn. your Lordships from this very afilladcete,aflattilgoill'asits1 to apply a remedy to HA which makes all our preaching vain, to reform those nests of drunkenness, to remove these moral plagues. And now that I come foward at their instigation—that I lend myself as their coadjutor— that I put myself as an humble instrument in the hands of the guardians of morality and reli4ion—but two out of six-and-twentv right reverend prelatee will sacrifice their dinner, their regard to their belly, which is their Gaul." (Laughter.) Lord SALISBURY rose to order, and the following scene ensued.

Lord. SM.ISBURY—" I move that the noble and learned lord's words be taken down."

Lord Ilitoucalam—" That they may be taken down correctly. I think I had better repeat them. I was saying that the Bench of Bishops—" Lord Kiisvox—" I rise to order. The moment the words are objected to, no time should be lost in taking them down." Lord Iltiortitwi—" I am just repeating them that the clerk may be at no loss. The Bench of Bishops, more than all the f.ay Peers of the realm, have expressed their strong sense of the evil effects of beer-houses to the morals of the people under their care ; and it is chiefly at their instigation that I have brought forward a measure as their coadjutor, and an humble instru- ment in their hands, for the purpose of putting down what they abominate as prejudicial to the morals of the people—"

The Marquis of SALISBURY—" These are not the words." Lord BROUGILAM—" Allow me to finish the sentence : I OM getting on.. But I find that the whole twenty-six Prelate—" Lord KENVON—" I rise again to order. A noble friend of mine has called the noble and learned lord to order, and he must state the reasons why he did call him to order."

Lord BROURIIA31—" The words must first be taken down."

Considerable confusion here prevailed in the House, two or three noble lords: speaking at 011ee; which was terminated -ny time rising or Lord ELTANBOROT2011; who said, that in point of fact the opportunity hind now passed. (Shouts of " Hear, hear!" front Lord Brougham.) The rules of the House required that the words should be taken down instanter. The Marquis of SALISRUR1" hoped the noble and learned lord would at least explain his meaning. Lora BROUGHAM.—" I have no objection to state may words. I said that the Bench of Bishops, at whose instigation I have brought forward this MM.. ' . sure and in whose hands I have been an humble tool, out of their great regard for the morals of the people, had sacrificed all personal considerations, and had attended by two of their body upon the present oceasion—(Langhter)—and having the greatest veneration for tint Bench of Bisbops—(Loughter)—I felt peculiar pain that no more of them were here." That was all lie had meant.

DANISH CLAIMS. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr.. CRESSIVELL moved an address to the Queen praying her Majesty to direct the Commissioners, to whom were referred the claims of British merchants for compensation of losses sustained by the seizure of ships and cargoes in 1807 by the Danish Government, to proceed to adjudi- cate those claims. The motion was supported by Mr. Ilurr, Lord SAsnoN, Sir Slat:m.0Rn CANNING, and Mr. WARBURTON ; opposed by Mr. SPRING RICE, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. GOULBURN ; and car- ried, by a majority of 95 to 82.

Mr. SPRING RICE, after the division was declared, said—

He should certainly no longer oppose the adjudication of the claims, bat that he should he prepared to resist time applieatiun of any portion of the pub- lie money towards their settlement. The House, in his judgment, had not affirmed the money-vote ; and he considered the money-vote us still an open quest ion.

THE BUDGET ; POSTAGE. Mr. SPRING RICE, on being questioned, gave notice on Tuesday, that he should make his financial statement on Friday the 5th of July, at the same time that he proposed resolu- tions relative to the postage of letters.

LoNoox AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY BILL. An attempt was made on Tuesday to throw out this bill, by Mr. CRAWFORD ; who moved to postpone the consideration of' the report for six months. The motion was defeated by a majority of 176 to 73.

SHANNON NAVIC;ATION ; PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND. Mr. SPRING RICE, on Monday, obtained leave to bring in bills to Improve the Navi- gation of the Shannon and to Amend Acts for Public Works in Ireland. The Shannoa Bill was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading on Friday.